The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 3, 2026) acquitted a man who was the sole surviving convict in a kidnapping-for-ransom and murder case, holding that the prosecution had failed to produce reliable evidence linking him to the crime.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran said the investigation was largely based on confessions made by the accused and evidence that was never properly proved in court. The case involved the kidnapping and murder of a man who had left his home for Hyderabad. After he went missing, his father received a ransom call. The family subsequently deposited Rs 1.5 lakh into a bank account allegedly linked to the accused.
The police traced the case through telephone records and arrested one of the accused, A6. According to the prosecution, A6’s confession led the police to an apartment where the victim’s body was found hidden inside a refrigerator. A6’s alleged confession was also used to identify the other accused, including the appellant before the Supreme Court.
The trial court convicted five accused. One accused died during the trial. Later, the High Court acquitted four of the accused but upheld the conviction of the appellant.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the evidence against the appellant was not sufficient to sustain his conviction. The Bench noted that much of the prosecution’s account of what had happened came from the confessions of the accused. Such confessions could not be used to prove the guilt of other accused persons.
The Court observed that the prosecution’s case rested solely on uncorroborated confessions, while also highlighting significant flaws in the electronic evidence presented.
The police had relied on CCTV footage which allegedly showed the accused withdrawing the ransom money from an ATM. However, the person in the footage could not be clearly identified. More importantly, the prosecution had not produced the certificate required under the law to prove the authenticity of the electronic recording.
The call records used by investigators to trace A6 suffered from a similar problem. The telecom company’s Nodal Officer, who could have formally proved the records, was never examined before the court. The required certificate for electronic evidence was also not produced.
The Supreme Court observed that because the call records were not properly proved, the prosecution’s entire narrative regarding their careful analysis completely fell apart.
The Bench also questioned the evidence relating to the recovery of the victim’s body. Although the prosecution claimed that A6 had led the police to the apartment where the body was found, no independent witness was examined to support the recovery. Since A6 had subsequently been acquitted by the High Court, his statement could not be used to establish the appellant’s guilt.
The Court further found that the prosecution had failed to properly prove the alleged money trail. The person in whose bank account the ransom amount was deposited was never examined. The CCTV footage relating to the alleged withdrawal of money also could not be relied upon because the necessary certificate had not been produced.
The Bench said the post-mortem report clearly established that the victim had died from suffocation caused by smothering associated with strangulation. His body was also found concealed inside a refrigerator in an apartment.
However, beyond these facts, there was no reliable evidence connecting the appellant or the other accused to the murder or even to the apartment where the body was found. The Court noted that the Investigating Officer relied heavily on the confessions, failing to gather substantive evidence to link the accused to the crime.
The Supreme Court consequently set aside the appellant’s conviction and ordered his release, unless he was required in connection with any other case.
The post Supreme Court acquits man in kidnapping-murder case, says probe relied on confessions, unproved evidence appeared first on India Legal.